Mossling » July 2nd, 2019, 8:37 pm wrote:Lozza wrote: However, I sincerely doubt that governments will be employing 50%, but far less.
Well, if UBI is taken as a kind of 'salary' to keep the population on 'standby' - to stand in, if need be, during a war, or virus-caused tech breakdown epidemic, or whatever, then it'll be more than 50%.
Oh, for joy, for joy! So, as long as there's a war zone to send troops to, a pandemic or (you left out civil unrest) rioting, whereby extra police or troops are needed to be employed by the government, the introduction of AI is fine. Well that's just dandy logic, isn't it? In order to achieve greater than 50% employment, we just need civil unrest, a pandemic or a continuous war needing continuous troops, just so you can have your Star Trek toy(s). Clearly, you'll be nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize for that rationale alone, won't you, Capt Kirk?
I understand all too well how they have described the UBI, as I also know all too well that descriptions and justifications of such things from a politician's mouth is nothing but crap, and it will be used to initially create a "livable" wage, but in time, will decrease, just as wages and salaries haven't kept pace with inflation since 1977, the UBI won't either, as the inflation and employment figures are rubbish anyway, painting a false picture of low inflation and high employment, when the opposite for both categories is the truth. If the government says the UBI is a good thing, you can guarantee that they will perverse the concept and use it for their own agendas, not our benefit.
And that's before we get to Big Business reluctantly being a part of this, but then stating that they're paying too much, can't afford it, and so drop their contributions. For, you know who predominately pays for the UBI, don't you? Big Business! Let's look at that...they currently pay CEO's between 300 and 600 times the lowest wage earner in their company, because they are too full of their own self-importance, but now with the UBI, they're going to part with far more money than giving their employees a fair income instead of a pittance ,(they'd pay less than a pittance if they could, but there are laws about pittances) for now they are going to pay people that don't work at all. And this somehow makes sense to you, when they won't part with the money for anything or anybody as it is now. But they're going to fund a UBI...in your dreams. This is mutton dressed as lamb.
Lozza wrote:Enter the UBI...you can survive, but can't live well. Poverty for all. The prospect of financial poverty lies in our future...you will survive, but won't live well unless you are one of the lucky
Who knows - I guess it depends on what the definition of a happy life is? Watching endless porn videos and smoking pot until one loses one's grip on reality? Or hiking in the countryside and enjoying sunsets? These latter sources of health and peaceful joy are, as it happens, completely free.
I see that you have your fingers firmly on the pulse of the average working person, who eats take-away, possesses all the mod-cons, drives a late model car or are "trendy" and driving an SUV. All from the conditioning that our "throw away" society provides, that seems to have completely escaped your (not so) keen observations. "Just change the conditioning" I hear you say?...somehow I don't think that MacDonald's, General Electric, General Motors, Ford, Hollywood and all the other multi nationals, are about to stop advertising just because you'd like AI and for everyone to take a walk in the park for their sole source of entertainment...maybe you could trade your rose colored glasses for a joint to have on your walk in the park...you won't see things differently, but you'll be comfortably numb for a while.
Lozza wrote:Anyone trying to say AI is a good idea, either has a vested interest, or is a fool, for it bodes badly for humanity.
Lol. It's just technology - can be used for good and for bad, just like any other. Why are you using a computer? Shouldn't you be laboring on an Amish farm somewhere? ;P
Wow! It's just technology! I would never have guessed had you not told me. Gee, and I thought it was just people that didn't have any comprehension of the humanities, but spend some of their time talking about it.
It's HOW that technology is used that concerns me, and big business will use it for its labour-saving qualities and government will use it for their clandestine agencies and other agencies that spy upon the population and military applications. It's not to say that there won't be some positive applications, but the most noticeable and far-reaching will be what I mentioned...it's not as though I haven't seen good ideas perverted by government and big business before, or repeatedly, to possess this view of a negative outcome.